EU Just Transition Fund Reaches Exposed Regions, Overlooks Social Vulnerability

Key finding

An analysis of the implementation of the EU Just Transition Fund (JTF) shows that funding flows primarily to economically highly exposed regions. Social vulnerabilities—such as unemployment, low incomes or lower educational attainment—are rarely addressed in a targeted way. In addition, the thematic funding priorities in some cases diverge from the transition risks identified for regions.

Mandate and governance of the JTF

From 2021 to 2027 the JTF provides roughly €19.7 billion. Its purpose is to support regions that are particularly affected by the transition to climate neutrality—such as coal regions or industrial sites with high emissions. While EU guidance defines exposure to decarbonisation as a key criterion, member states decide how funds are distributed regionally and how programmes are designed in content.

Study approach

The study applies an established vulnerability framework with three dimensions: (1) exposure (economic structure, emissions), (2) social vulnerability (e.g. labour market, education, income) and (3) adaptive capacity (administrative and financial resources, co‑financing ability, institutional capacity). These indicators are compared with EU allocations to countries and the nationally planned regional expenditures.

Funds follow economic exposure

The allocation clearly reflects economic exposure: regions with high emissions or strong dependence on fossil fuels receive a disproportionate share of funds. At EU level the exposure criteria are active—where structural change is most severe, funding density increases.

Social vulnerability remains underweighted

There is no systematic link to social vulnerability. Regions with weaker labour markets, lower education levels or lower incomes are not consistently prioritised. Within exposed regions, funds therefore do not reliably reach the groups most at risk from job losses and structural disruption.

Adaptive capacity shapes programme design

Regions with stronger administrative and financial capacity provide more co‑financing and implement more complex programmes. This leverage effect is intended, but it can shift priorities. Certain cases suggest that higher capacity does not automatically translate into tailored support for the most vulnerable groups.

Thematic priorities diverge from risks

The choice of measures only partially mirrors the risk indicators. Higher‑emitting or fossil‑dependent regions do not consistently prioritise decarbonisation investments. Likewise, areas with a high share of employment in CO2‑intensive industries do not uniformly place reskilling and labour market reintegration at the top of their agendas.

Relevance for social cohesion

Insufficiently targeted spending increases the risk of rising inequality and political resistance to climate policy. A viable transition strategy must link technical decarbonisation with up‑skilling, labour market support and social protection to secure acceptance.

Recommendations from the study

– Sharpen thematic requirements: introduce clear minimum shares for measures that directly address regional transition risks (e.g. reskilling, reintegration, emissions reduction). – Expand reporting: publish regular, transparent reports on actually disbursed funds rather than only on planned expenditures. – Embed social vulnerability as a selection criterion: prioritise funds where social impact is greatest.

What a just transition requires

Sufficient funding is only the beginning. Crucial is precise targeting: alongside adapting economic structures, instruments are needed to mitigate social impacts and to strengthen regional implementation capacities. Otherwise, regions may be financed but not supported equitably—undermining both climate objectives and social cohesion across the EU.